| In Bulleit
Bottle Trade Dress Trial Deutsch Mocked
Cork Now Diageo
Spikes Football
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon Maxwell
Book
BBC-Guardian
UK - Honduras
- ESPN
NY
Mag
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
June 1 –A rare whiskey bottle
trademark trial has concluded
before U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New
York Judge Louis L. Stanton
and Inner City Press covered
it, exclusively.
Diageo
North America, Inc. beyond
Smirnoff, Guinness and Johnnie
Walker has Bulleit brand
whiskey as one of its flagship
products.
It is name after
Augustus Bulleit who sold
high-rye whiskey from a tavern
from 1830 to 1860, described
in the complaint at the days
of the "Old West."
Deutsch during the trial
claimed, among other things,
that its Redemption's cork is
more prominent.
The jury verdict
was mixed - no likelihood of
confusion or bad faith found,
but yes, dilution in the value
of trade dress under both
Federal and New York State
law.
Later on June 1,
this: "Hi
Matthew,
We have noticed your previous
coverage of the Bulleit trial
and we wanted to share with
you a statement regarding the
verdict attributable to a
Diageo spokesperson: 'The jury
concluded that Diageo’s
Bulleit trade dress is valid
and protectable, and that the
packaging, including its
iconic bottle, is famous and
Deutsch’s Redemption packaging
diluted Bulleit’s famous trade
dress. In finding
in favor of Diageo on these
claims, the jury rejected all
of Deutsch’s
counterclaims.
'Based on this
verdict, Diageo intends
promptly to pursue all
available legal remedies,
including the entry of an
injunction to halt use of any
advertising, promotion or sale
of the current packaging, and
to require a packaging change
for the accused Redemption
line of products.'"
We'll continue to follow this.
On the witness
stand on May 16 was the bottle
and label's designer, cross
examined by counsel for the
defendants Deutsch and
Bardstown Barrel Selections,
LLC.
The line
of questioning should to show
the civil jury that the
designer had in essence copies
the design from a bottle in a
museum.
But the design
said he, he had modified the
design. He went to the museum,
he said, to learn about the
history of American
whiskey.
There was a
dispute about what constitutes
an oblong versus flask-shaped
bottle.
The courtroom was
surprisingly full.
On May 17, on the
stand was a witness from
Deutsche, responding on emails
about the placement in liquor
stores in Minnesota and New
Jersey (Super Buy Rite of
Williamstown, NJ) of
Redemption next to Bulleit.
The witness said he was not
aware of customer confusion
but he understand Diegeo
alleges it.
On May 18 there
was cross-examination about
the "trade dress" of Bulleit,
St. Peter's, Gilbey's and a
photo of Fireball was flashed
to the jury. There were an
array of bottles on the
witness stand, as in a bar.
On May 19 Ms.
Kilgore of Deutsch described
the Redemption bottle as
"manly" as they found people
wanted this whiskey, a bottle
with broad shoulders. Also, a
visible cork to show it's
premium. She dissed Bulleit.
On May 20, it was
expert versus expert. A slide
entitled "Problems with Mr.
Reilly's Calculations" was
shown to the jury. The witness
said, Inventory is an asset.
One of the jurors, on the top
row, nodded. Deageo wants $21
million.
On May 23, the
witness on the stand laughed
when handed a large document
she had previously signed. She
said she knew they had an
agreement on the intellectual
property of the Redemption
bottle, but didn't remember
the patent application.
Questioning got into the
embossing.
On May 24, on the
stand was a market research
expert, Matthew G. Ezell, who
conducted an "evergreen" study
about Bulleit's trade dress
and possible customer
confusion. Meanwhile the
parties agreed to withdrawn
some exhibits.
On May 25, on the
stand was a witness testifying
to a summary chart created
from Redemption's sales
numbers, before and after the
new label / bottle.
On May 26, there
was video testimony of an
expert on trademark law and
process. He said has reviewed
the papers in the case, and
know about trademark
applications being denied for
lack of distinctiveness.
On May 31 in
closing argument Deutsch's
counsel told the jury that
Diageo had lost any right to
claim trade dress protection,
as it had not similarly gone
after Fireball. He noted that
other products once trademarks
now aren't, pointedly
mentioning kerosene as an
example.
The case is
Diageo North America, Inc. v.
W.J. Deutsch & Sons, Ltd.,
et al., 17-cv-4259 (Stanton)
***
Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a
month helps keep us going and grants you
access to exclusive bonus material on our
Patreon page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2022 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
